suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

OH, POOR U.C., POOR, POOR U.C.

This explains why the University of California — at least, the Los Angeles campus — is floundering.

Oh, poor U.C., poor, poor U.C.L.A.:

Q: What is conservatism?

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.”

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.”

Another indication that many among the faculty remain indentured to 1965 or are, at best, lost in stacks and stacks and stacks of information. Wandering around. Stuck in time. Glommed onto story book gnomes in tiny red hats wedged amidst sticky computer keys on heated terminals in stuffy rooms, worrying about Paid Days Off, Benefits and…”What Time Is It? Can I go now? Wait, let me write about the Evil Conservative Society.”

Psst: Can I go now? And will you please turn off Joan Baez?

LATER UPDATE…Image file lost to relocation of servers after this thread was written, and, the file would not be replaced here even if found, on second review of the image (“brown people” dominate U.C. in an affectionate representation of that message, was the theme of the crass image).

Found art (^^) — sychronicity on the internet, after a random image search to accompany the sympathies above. No surprise here: leads to a site that endorses Kerry/Edwards. I always wonder how much the Peoples Republic of Highpitched Tones would fund as to all that information and website publishing. Reading that article (BLOGDEX) is the intellectual equivalent of the sound of fingernails against a chalkboard…

Share

19 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:

    Hehehe…the new intel ad is up. -justaguy

    http://www.georgewbush.com/

  2. justaguy says:

    http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/state/9395212.htm

    ST. PAUL – Scott O’Grady, the Air Force pilot who captured headlines in 1995 when he survived being shot down over Bosnia, on Friday said Sen. John Kerry committed “treason” during the Vietnam War.

  3. justaguy says:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011234-1949r.htm

    The American Medical Association lists North Carolina’s current health care situation as a “crisis” and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over.

  4. -S- says:

    HA, and yeah, I saw that ad already twice on FOX this evening…very effective, very specifically so. Good job. Um, gets the job done!

    ~;-D

  5. -S- says:

    I agree with O’Grady!

    That article is astounding…so, Kerry’s saying he LIED about those “peace talk” activities IN SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE? Oh, O.K., then.

    Posted on Fri, Aug. 13, 2004
    O’GRADY: KERRY’S ACTIONS AFTER VIETNAM CONSTITUTED TREASONASHLEY H. GRANT
    Associated Press

    ST. PAUL – Scott O’Grady, the Air Force pilot who captured headlines in 1995 when he survived being shot down over Bosnia, on Friday said Sen. John Kerry committed “treason” during the Vietnam War.

    O’Grady, in an appearance with other military veterans coordinated by President Bush’s re-election campaign, said Kerry helped push North Vietnam’s proposals for the United States to withdraw at a time when the two countries were still officially at war.

    “I see that as treason,” said O’Grady, who lives in Texas and has been speaking at veterans events for Bush around the country. He’s now retired from the military.

    A Bush campaign spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt, said O’Grady’s views were his own.

    “The Bush-Cheney campaign does not and has not ever questioned John Kerry’s patriotism,” Schmitt said.

    O’Grady said he was referring to Kerry’s 1971 appearance before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In response to a question about how he proposed to end the war, Kerry mentioned that he was involved in peace talks in Paris.

    “I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government,” Kerry told the panel, according to a transcript.

    A U.S. law prohibits citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties.

    Earlier this year, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan told the Boston Globe that Kerry had “no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations.” Meehan said Kerry had gone to Paris on a private trip and had one brief meeting with Madam Nguyen Thi Binh and others.

    Binh, a leader of the Provisional Revolutionary Government, a communist group based in South Vietnam, had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that U.S. POWs would be released when American forces withdrew.

    On Friday, O’Grady asserted that Kerry had championed the proposals of the communist regime in North Vietnam about setting a date to withdraw U.S. troops – a situation O’Grady called “treasonous.”

    “That is my own, personal opinion,” he said.

    In his 1971 testimony, Kerry told senators that many officials of the American government had said that prisoners of war would be returned if the United States set a date for withdrawal.

    “I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that,” Kerry testified.

    Kerry’s Minnesota campaign, asked for a response to O’Grady, put forward Jim Bootz, a Navy veteran from Chaska who has campaigned for Kerry.

    “I don’t think there’s anything treasonous about what he did,” Bootz said.

    He said Kerry had been trying to help find a solution for the Vietnam conflict.

    “It wasn’t a radical viewpoint,” Bootz said.

    Ashley Grant may be reached at agrant(at)ap.org
    ON THE NET
    http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

  6. justaguy says:

    Be prepared. Laity, priests, etc. are misquoting Cardinal Ratzinger.

    “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

    Some believe this is stating that Social Security and the Environment can trump abortion.

    The truth is Ratzinger’s letter does not give Catholics permission to vote for Kerry, or any other pro-choice candidate — unless there are “existing proportionate reasons” to vote for that candidate. This means some other issue/reason must be of equal or greater importance than our 100% zero tolerance stance on abortion (which is central to our faith). What Ratzinger is really doing is giving Catholics the leeway to vote for Bush. Bush is against abortion in 98% of abortion cases. Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for Kerry (who
    is a staunch pro-choice advocate), or any other pro-choice candidate who vows to put pro-choice judges on the Supreme Court — and who also wants to force Catholic charities to cover and/or distribute contraceptives via their insurance
    policies, etc. Also one must understand, when voting as a Catholic — one must take in consideration the candidate’s stance AND “political position.” In other words, if two mayors of a city are running and one is pro-choice — then one could vote for that mayor because of other “reasons.” A mayor’s power has very little affect on abortion legislature. But, on the Presidential level — it matters. Finally, abortion and capital punishment are not equal matters. The Church defines abortion as being “intrinsically evil” whereas “capital punishment” is not.

    -justaguy

  7. justaguy says:

    I’m an average Joe just like you!!!! Yeahhhhhhhh rightttttttttt.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

  8. justaguy says:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

    Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. … It’s a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. … And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging… and she must also have a billion dollars.

    Oh wait…scratch that last part…he didn’t say that! ;)

  9. justaguy says:

    I think I’ve posted the Catholic Voter’s Guide before. -justaguy

  10. -S- says:

    –>>”I think I’ve posted the Catholic Voter’s Guide before. -justaguy”

    It’s fine to post it as often and as many times as you like. Every time I read it, I comprehend more, so, no worries, no harm in posting it any time you want to!

    You know, the issue really needs to be discussed in the public discourse but it isn’t. I think — I have to leave for some errands and things and won’t be back ’till later today — but I think I might post it as a thread and try to discuss the issues raised.

    Because, I know in my own experience, I voted (OMGosh) for Al Gore last election (I regretted doing it when I did, and believe me, I regret it even more so now and for the last few years, also) (but there’s a story there, in relationship with my faith as a Catholic, and that’s also something I think I’d like to write about, in light of these recently clarifying and important comments made to and about Catholics, as to our voting “conscience” and for whom we vote accordingly.

    So, when I return later today, I will (new thread about this)…but, just to clarify here, I did vote for Al Gore last election but only did so because I threw my conscience aside and opted to go with “the party line,” to vote for the Democratic Party’s now proven to be false promise of providing greater care to the larger number of people (it’s an often deceit that many Christians and particularly Catholics fall victim to, believing that the Democrats will provide more actual “helps” to the needy and so voting for a Democrat on that false promise, which is, in my experience, an illusion). The vote for Gore is the only time I cast a vote and knew it was “wrong” in my conscience, but did so anyway based upon belief in the illusion that the DNC held promise of concerns for humanity, versus the RNC that “did not” as per the DNC propaganda.

  11. -S- says:

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm–>>”Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. … It’s a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. … And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging… and she must also have a billion dollars.

    –>>”Oh wait…scratch that last part…he didn’t say that! ;)”

    You know, I actually wonder just how fascinating TH-K would’a been to John if she’d been serving him his fast-food order through a window to his drive-through SUV. Or been an ACTUAL “lady…farm(er)” on that realestage of hers in Pennsylvania, standing in the barn pitching hay in her Muck Boots and overalls.

    ~Oh, yeah, John’nd thought she was s-e-x-y alright.~

    This recent spate of Kerry’s “women who I think are sexy” banter reminds me of Al Gore’s “you know, I was responsible for the Internet being invented” line of stoopid comments.

    It’s as if Kerry and wife are really TRYING to “get down with the people” while they just continue to impress the actual people how much they are out of touch with who those people are.

  12. justaguy says:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40006

    Kerry contradicts self
    in his own war diary?
    At least 9 days after Purple Heart,
    wrote he had not ‘been shot at yet’

  13. -S- says:

    Very interesting article there…

    “Kerry contradicts self in his own war diary”

    “At least 9 days after Purple Heart,
    wrote that he had not ‘been shot at yet'”
    I understand that John McCain thinks badly about what these approximately 250 Swiftees (Swift Boat Veterans) has to share about their experiences in the Viet Nam War, as it relates to Kerry and what those Swiftees know and observed about Kerry in those circumstances, but the stories by the Swiftees are theirs to tell and should not be discouraged from being discussed by us in the public.

    Political advertising is one thing but their stories are another thing altogether. Based upon how dramatically caustic has been the “counter response” by the Dems and liberal moveon.org about the Swiftees, obviously there is no defense to what they have to share but to try to demean them as source, attempting to make their personal stories an aspect of “political advertising” — that is, the Left jumps the point, calls the information “advertising” and therefore not credible (think about that, because that premise by the Left can also equate with them admitting that their own “political advertising” is “false, misleading…” and all those nasties that they have thrown in accusation about the Swiftees).

    Kerry seems to be some person who has woven an excessively dramatic “self portrait” FOR political purposes, declaring aspects and things as facts to suit his self-crafted self portrait of some big war hero guy, and that’s his entire premise as to credibility on which he now campaigns.

    I am extremely concerned that the country may elect someone to the Presidency who is quite so deluded as is John Kerry. If he can and has made up such dramatic information about his own “self portrait” over time, just how much will he literally make up out of his own imagination and for “political purposes” and then declare it as “truth” just because he says it is, and anyone with a contrary observation be damned.

    He’s giving a (recorded broadcast) very offensive “as President, I will wage war with lessons I learned from war” speech before the VFW Convention from Monday as I write this and it is tragic how such a conman has risen to such a position of influence. The Left can dismiss anything it cares to based upon the denigration of “it’s political advertising” or “it’s for political purposes” (and, therefore, anything, everything can be dismissed by the Left with that unprogressive, illogical retort), but what they promise as to a form of government appears to be one with motive to (1.) gain power and (2.) gain power by deceit.

    John Kerry defies reason and it’s a mystery to me why anyone, why any one voter, would ever cast a vote to support his form of fantasy history and fantasy promises. In that broadcast before the VFW, he’s promising impossible things based whose only hope to approach in accomplishment are a government so huge as to use whatever resources would otherwise be distributed to those who need it.

    Which is, again, the very premise of the Demos, the Left: outlandish, irrational promises of delivery of (whatever) based upon the reliance of a huge government, a mass that drains resources and delivers little. That’s what creates the social problems and ultimately military problems, and that thing itself. I think what Kerry promises is devastation to our nation.

  14. -S- says:

    Yes, this IS interesting. I read this article yesterday and could hardly believe the audacious misrepresentations by Maureen Dowd (who appears to have flipped her lid). Trying to affix the label of “attack dog” on — of all people — Laura Bush is beyond the bottom of the pond-scum lining the bottom of a barrel in Maureen Dowd’s sub-basement of intelligence.

    The whole “stem cell” mantra by the Left as a cause celebre is truly strange. Most among those who pummel this issue among the Left don’t even understand what they’re saying, what the issues are about the research nor what any/all medical research is, or what hopes exist or just take your pick from all those options. I know that Ron Reagan is active in “Common Cause” so perhaps this is one of those key/pet issues per key/pet Group (a lot of leftwing enterainers are also in that group…Serandon, people like that).

    There ARE these groups that allow certain celebrities to appear as “spokespersons” for whatever cause works in good coordination with the group and the celebrity, and the celebrity gets extra media exposure for supporting various causes, etc….about the generalized thing that the Left calls “stem cell research,” however, there isn’t even an indication that there exists any promise or possible “cure” or helps for Alzheimer’s Disease by using various types of stem cells (there are more than one), and, as with other diseases and disorders, the area of research is so broad as to be a shot in the dark, literally, where any specific disease/disorder is concerned. I believe, also, the most productive stem cells in contemporary research is from the umbilical chord, so that stem cells aren’t even necessary from “harvested” human fetus’ — what I think the Left tries and tries and tries, again and again, with this issue of generalized “stem cell research” is that they try to make it provide more impetus to “allow” and even condone abortion of unborn human beings. If not that angle to this issue, then what?

    Maureen Dowd is an idiot:

    Saturday, Aug. 14, 2004 11:53 a.m. EDT
    Maureen Dowd: Laura Bush a GOP ‘Attack Dog’First lady Laura Bush is wildly popular with the American people, but not with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who called her a GOP “attack dog” this week for speaking out on stem cell research.

    “She’s been dragged out to be a Republican attack dog on the most contentious issue, stem cell research, defending her husband’s, you know, refusal to use more [stem cell] lines,” Dowd told CBS “Early Show” host Hannah Storm while promoting her new book “Bushworld.”

    Story Continues Below

    “I think it’s a huge mistake,” warned the top Timeswoman. “Laura is this fantastic, nice, Marian-the-librarian type who was curled up with a cat on her lap reading Dostoevsky” and “they drag Laura on to the campaign trail because she had such high approval ratings.”
    Of course, Dowd failed to note that the first lady’s “attack” on stem cell research amounted to warning that the new science wouldn’t do much to cure Alzheimer’s.

    That’s exactly what Mr. Stem Cell Research himself, Ron P. Reagan, said last month.

    “Alzheimer’s is a disease, ironically, that probably won’t be amenable to treatment through stem cell therapies,” Reagan told MSBC’s Chris Matthews.

    Make that “attack dog” Ron Reagan.